sportsbet_results_competitions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: the return payload structure and that authentication is optional but a refresh token unlocks more data. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences cover purpose, return shape, and auth behavior without wasted words. The key information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, the annotations, schema, and description together cover the essential operational details. The return structure compensates for the missing output schema; the only minor ambiguity is what 'unlocks more' expands in the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description only paraphrases the parameters ('for a sport class on a date') and adds no extra format, edge-case, or relationship information beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the resource and scope: competitions with results for a sport class on a date, and gives the return shape. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like sportsbet_results_classes or sportsbet_event_results, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose implies when to use it: when you need competitions and their final scores for a sport class on a given date. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the resource description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.